The Nursing Dean's World: Professional and Personal Lives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose- The purpose of this paper is to report the results of a study which aimed to describe the ways a group of deans of nursing integrated their professional and personal lives in their worlds. Methods- Oral histories were collected from a group of 30 deans from three countries – Canada, England and Australia. The data from the interviews were content analysed for themes related to the deans' personal and professional life experiences. Through contrast and comparison of these themes, the researchers wrote a description of how the deans integrated their personal and professional lives. Results- The major themes that emerged from the analysis were: work demands, dual career partnerships, children come first, obtaining educational qualifications, other professional activities, and out of work activities. Conclusion- The world of the dean of nursing working in a complex university structure is complex and often impacts on the rest of their lives. However, it is important to see that their personal lives and how they live them can revitalise and give them emotional strength for their professional life. The study has implications for deans who need to reflect on how they integrate the two lives in their worlds by identifying stress and taking advantage of developmental opportunities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".